doi: 10.56294/saludcyt2024.1352
ORIGINAL
Universal design for learning to improve students’ social interaction in elementary school teacher education
Diseño universal del aprendizaje para mejorar la interacción social de los estudiantes en la formación docente de la escuela primaria
Sri Sukasih1 
*, Desi Wulandari1 , Dewi Nilam Tyas1 , Noening Andrijati1
1Semarang State University, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Semarang, Indonesia.
Cite as: Sukasih S, Wulandari D, Tyas DN, Andrijati N. Universal design for learning to improve students’ social interaction in elementary school teacher education. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología. 2024; 4:.1352. https://doi.org/10.56294/saludcyt2024.1352
Submitted: 29-02-2024 Revised: 19-07-2024 Accepted: 19-12-2024 Published: 20-12-2024
Editor: Prof.
Dr. William Castillo-González
Corresponding author: Sri Sukasih *
ABSTRACT
Introduction: the increasing diversity of learners in educational settings necessitates the adoption of inclusive teaching strategies. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offers a framework to enhance student engagement and participation, particularly in higher education.
Objectives: this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of UDL strategies in fostering social interaction and adaptation to learning among Elementary School Teacher Education students.
Method: a mixed-methods approach was employed, combining observational data and qualitative interviews. Observations were conducted in lectures to assess student engagement levels, while interviews provided insights into individual experiences with UDL implementation.
Results: the findings revealed that 70 % of students actively engaged in social interactions during lectures, with 60 % of participants reporting challenges in UDL implementation. Documentation rates indicated that 70 % of social interactions were recorded, highlighting a strong emphasis on capturing student engagement. However, 10 % of students faced barriers to participation, suggesting the need for tailored support.
Conclusion: the study underscores the effectiveness of UDL in promoting an interactive learning environment, while also identifying areas for improvement. Ongoing professional development and resource allocation are essential to address the challenges faced by both students and educators in implementing UDL principles. This research contributes to the growing body of literature advocating for inclusive educational practices that cater to diverse learner needs.
Keywords: Higher Education; Learning Strategy; Social Interaction; Universal Learning Design.
RESUMEN
Introducción: la creciente diversidad de estudiantes en los entornos educativos requiere la adopción de estrategias de enseñanza inclusivas. El Diseño Universal para el Aprendizaje (DUA) ofrece un marco para mejorar la participación y el compromiso de los estudiantes, en particular en la educación superior.
Objetivo: este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar la eficacia de las estrategias del DUA para fomentar la interacción social y la adaptación al aprendizaje entre los estudiantes de Formación Docente de la Escuela Primaria.
Método: se empleó un enfoque de métodos mixtos, combinando datos de observación y entrevistas cualitativas. Se realizaron observaciones en las clases para evaluar los niveles de participación de los estudiantes, mientras que las entrevistas proporcionaron información sobre las experiencias individuales con la implementación del DUA.
Resultados: los hallazgos revelaron que el 70 % de los estudiantes participaron activamente en interacciones sociales durante las clases, y el 60 % de los participantes informaron desafíos en la implementación del DUA.
Las tasas de documentación indicaron que el 70 % de las interacciones sociales se registraron, lo que destaca un fuerte énfasis en capturar la participación de los estudiantes. Sin embargo, el 10 % de los estudiantes enfrentaron barreras para la participación, lo que sugiere la necesidad de un apoyo personalizado. Conclusión: el estudio subraya la eficacia del DUA para promover un entorno de aprendizaje interactivo, al tiempo que identifica áreas de mejora. El desarrollo profesional continuo y la asignación de recursos son esenciales para abordar los desafíos que enfrentan tanto los estudiantes como los educadores en la implementación de los principios del UDL. Esta investigación contribuye al creciente corpus de literatura que aboga por prácticas educativas inclusivas que atiendan las diversas necesidades de los estudiantes
Palabras clave: Educación Superior; Estrategia de Aprendizaje; Interacción Social; Diseño de Aprendizaje Universal.
INTRODUCTION
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an educational approach that prioritizes adaptability in instructional methods and is designed to accommodate a variety of needs,(1,2) learning styles, and student backgrounds. The authors of this article together present the use of UDL to readers consisting of therapists, teachers, lecturers, and educational practitioners, as well as publish knowledge in general.(3,4) Griful-Freixenet, Struyven, and Vantieghem (2021) suggest that the UDL Model operates on the premise that student diversity is a natural and anticipated aspect of learning(5). Consequently, educators take proactive steps to foster student engagement, and motivate students to access, participate in, and design learning projects.(6,7)
The urgency of implementing UDL is greatly needed amidst global demands for more inclusive and adaptive education.(8,9) The widespread adoption of online education (10,11,12) presents unique challenges, particularly for individuals with disabilities, this emphasizes the importance of inclusivity. The aim is to incorporate digital-age learning while providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the digital environment safely and efficiently.(13,14)
The role of UDL is critical to enhancing students’ social interactions, a critical aspect of building academic competencies and life skills in the 21st century.(15,16) The results of the study indicate that from the student’s perspective, the educational methods used in both teaching and learning environments differ in their potential to support social interactions in Elementary School Teacher Education Students. Social interactions resulting from gamification can influence their relationship with learning outcomes. Collaboration and competition are essential in this context. This paper emphasizes that collaborative learning enhances students’ social interaction skills, which are essential for academic competence and life skills in the 21st century.
Implementing UDL creates an inclusive and adaptive educational environment where every student, without exception, can fully access and participate in the learning process. This study contributes to the growing literature that considers the potential impact of universal design on student experiences.(17,18) UDL promotes inclusivity by addressing the varied needs of diverse students, ensuring full access and participation in the educational process for all students, regardless of ability.(19,20) UDL aims to create inclusive learning environments using technology, with a focus on Representation in second-level education, with potential for further research on Engagement, Action, and expresion.(21,22)
This study aims to explore the effectiveness of UDL as an approach that can improve social interaction in the lecture process. UDL enhances social interactions for students with intellectual disabilities, as evidenced in the literature, promoting inclusive education and skill development.(23) Further research is needed to explore these barriers and optimize the potential of UDL in diverse classrooms.
The role of UDL in higher education, particularly for PGSD students, has not been explored in terms of its impact on enhancing social interactions. Integrating digital technologies, such as Virtual Learning Environments (VLE), can facilitate social interactions. However, findings suggest that reliance on social media can hinder the efficiency of achieving educational goals.(24)
METHOD
Type of Research
This study employs a qualitative research design, specifically utilizing a case study approach to gain in-depth insights into the implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in educational settings.(25)
Place and Date of Implementation
The research was conducted at Semarang State University, Indonesia, from January to March 2023.
Population and Sample
The target population comprised 60 students enrolled in the Elementary School Teacher Education program (PGSD). Inclusion criteria included students actively participating in UDL-based courses, while exclusion criteria involved students who had not engaged with UDL methodologies. A stratified random sampling technique was employed to ensure representation across different demographics, including gender and age, resulting in a sample that accurately reflects the broader student population.(26)
Study Variables
The primary variables examined in this study included student engagement, social interaction, and the effectiveness of UDL strategies in enhancing collaborative learning.
Data Collection Methods and Instruments
Data were collected through three main methods: classroom observations, semi-structured individual interviews, and document analysis.(27,28) Observation sheets were utilized to record engagement levels, while interview guides facilitated in-depth discussions with participants.(29,30)
Statistical Techniques and Procedures
Thematic analysis was employed to analyze qualitative data, Statistical methods are not used directly in qualitative data analysis with thematic analysis methods. Thematic analysis focuses more on identifying, coding, and grouping themes that emerge in qualitative data, such as interviews or group discussions, based on contextual understanding. However, only using descriptive statistics to enrich qualitative data analysis.(31,32)
Ethical Parameters
Ethical approval was obtained from the university’s research ethics committee. Informed consent was secured from all participants, ensuring confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions. (33)
RESULTS
Social Interactions
|
Table 1. Social Interaction Engagement Indicators |
||||
|
Aspects |
Interviewee 1 |
Interviewee 2 |
Interviewee 3 |
Interviewee 4 |
|
Collaboration |
Actively participate in group work |
Occasional participation in groups |
Prefer individual work, but pitch in when needed |
Always engages in collaborative tasks |
|
Social Activities |
Engages in extracurricular activities |
Attends seminars and social events occasionally |
Rarely participates in social events |
Frequently organizes study groups and events |
|
Social Feedback |
Provides feedback regularly in discussions |
Occasionally gives feedback but Prefers written assignments |
Prefers to give feedback privately |
Regularly engages in peer feedback and discussions |
|
Use of Technology |
Utilizes online tools like Google Meet for group work |
Uses social media platforms for academic discussions |
Primarily relies on in-person meetings, but open to technology |
Actively uses learning management systems and video conferencing |
The qualitative insights from table 1 reveal varying levels of student engagement in collaborative activities. Notably, the responses indicate a spectrum of participation, with some students actively engaging in group work while others prefer individual tasks. This variability underscores the importance of tailoring collaborative opportunities to accommodate different learning preferences. The presence of students who frequently organize study groups suggests that peer-led initiatives can enhance social interaction, promoting a sense of community and shared learning experiences.
|
Table 2. Interview Results Related to Social Interaction |
||||
|
Aspects |
Strongly Involved (%) |
Moderately Involved (%) |
SlightlyInvolved (%) |
Not Involved (%) |
|
Collaboration |
40 % |
35 % |
15 % |
10 % |
|
Social Activities |
30 % |
25 % |
25 % |
20 % |
|
Social Feedback |
45 % |
30 % |
15 % |
10 % |
|
Use of Technology |
50 % |
30 % |
15 % |
5 % |
Table 2 quantifies the levels of involvement in various social interaction aspects, including collaboration, social activities, social feedback, and the use of technology. The data indicates that 40 % of respondents are strongly involved in collaboration, which is a positive indicator of the effectiveness of UDL in promoting teamwork. However, the 10 % of students who reported not being involved in collaboration highlights a need for targeted interventions to engage these individuals. The high percentage (50 %) of students utilizing technology for group work further emphasizes the role of digital tools in facilitating social interactions, particularly in an increasingly online educational landscape.
|
Table 3. Student Interaction Observation Results |
||||
|
Aspects |
High Involvement (%) |
Moderate Involvement (%) |
Low Involvement (%) |
No Involvement (%) |
|
Social Interaction in Lectures |
50 % |
30 % |
15 % |
5 % |
|
Adaptation to Learning |
45 % |
35 % |
15 % |
5 % |
|
Challenges in UDL Implementation |
60 % |
25 % |
10 % |
5 % |
The observational data in table 3 corroborates the interview findings, revealing that 70 % of students are actively engaged in social interactions during lectures. This high level of engagement suggests that UDL strategies are effectively fostering an interactive learning environment. However, the 10 % of students who are not involved in social interactions during lectures indicate potential barriers that may need to be addressed, such as anxiety or lack of confidence in participating. The challenges identified in UDL implementation, with 60 % of students and lecturers facing obstacles, further highlight the necessity for ongoing professional development and resource allocation to enhance understanding and application of UDL principles.
|
Table 4. Documentation results |
|||
|
Aspects |
Documented Evidence (%) |
Supporting Documents (%) |
Lack of Documentation (%) |
|
Social Interaction in Lectures |
70 % |
20 % |
10 % |
|
Adaptation to Learning |
65 % |
25 % |
10 % |
|
Challenges in UDL Implementation |
60 % |
30 % |
10 % |
Table 4 highlights the extent of documented evidence regarding social interactions in lectures, adaptation to learning, and challenges in UDL implementation. The data indicates that 70 % of the observed social interactions during lectures were documented, suggesting a strong emphasis on capturing student engagement in real time. This high level of documentation is crucial for understanding the dynamics of classroom interactions and provides a foundation for assessing the effectiveness of UDL strategies. Additionally, the 65 % documentation rate for adaptation to learning indicates that a majority of students are successfully adjusting to the learning methods employed, which is a positive outcome of UDL implementation. However, the 10 % of students struggling to adapt point to the necessity for tailored support mechanisms to assist those who may require additional resources or guidance.
|
Table 5. Results of relationships between variables |
|
|
Aspects |
Results of Analysis |
|
Social Interaction Engagement in Lectures |
Based on the analysis, around 70 % of students are actively involved in social interactions during lectures. They participate in group discussions, teamwork, and communication in online forums. However, 10 % of students are not involved in social interactions, so additional efforts are needed from lecturers to increase participation. |
|
Learning Adaptation |
As many as 65 % of students can adapt to learning methods, especially online learning. They can use technology such as LMS to learn. However, 10 % of students struggle to adapt, requiring technology training or special assistance. |
|
UDL Implementation Challenges |
Around 60 % of students and lecturers face challenges in implementing UDL, such as limited resources and a lack of understanding of UDL concepts. These challenges indicate the need for curriculum adjustments and increased capacity of lecturers to implement UDL effectively. |
Table 5 delves into the relationships between social interaction engagement in lectures, learning adaptation, and challenges in UDL implementation. The analysis reveals that approximately 70 % of students are actively involved in social interactions during lectures, which correlates positively with their ability to adapt to learning methods (65 %). This suggests that increased social engagement may enhance students’ adaptability, creating a synergistic effect that benefits overall learning outcomes. However, the 60 % of students and lecturers facing challenges in UDL implementation indicates that despite high engagement levels, significant barriers still exist. These challenges may stem from limited resources, insufficient understanding of UDL principles, or a lack of training in inclusive teaching practices.
DISCUSSION
Social Interaction Indicators
Collaboration skills emphasize the process of knowledge sharing and knowledge integration, as well as the quality of knowledge sharing and integration using reflective practice analysis and interpretive analysis.(34) Thirty of respondents are highly engaged in social activities, but 25 % are only moderately engaged, and 25 % are slightly engaged, indicating that social activities are not as intensive as collaboration. 20 % of respondents are not engaged, indicating that some groups do not participate in social activities. Engagement in academic activities plays a crucial role in determining the overall success of students in higher education institutions.(35)
Giving and receiving social feedback is very popular, with 45 % of respondents highly engaged and 30 % moderately engaged. 15 % are somewhat engaged, while 10 % are not engaged, indicating a need for stronger social communication. Individuals do not simply evaluate the range of viewpoints accessible to them based on the social responses they receive when expressing an opinion in a given social situation. Instead, they internalize the anticipated and therefore valued opinion to the point where it becomes their personal opinion.(36,37) Fifty of respondents were highly engaged in technology, indicating that technology plays an important role. 30 % were moderately engaged, while 15 % were slightly engaged. Only 5 % of respondents were not engaged in technology use, indicating that most participants were active. Teachers need to be aware of the potential of digital technology in everyday practice and guidelines for developing their skills when using technology for teaching and learning.(38,39)
Documentation Results
Fifty percent of students were highly engaged in social interaction during lectures, indicating that half of the students actively participated in discussions or collaboration with classmates. 30 % were moderately engaged, indicating good engagement but not as active as the first group. 15 % were only slightly engaged, perhaps because they felt uncomfortable or limited in social interaction. 5 % were not engaged at all, indicating that a handful of students did not participate in social interaction during lectures. It is important to note that students are happier and more motivated when learning from a happy instructor than a bored instructor.(40)
Forty five percent of students were highly engaged in adapting to learning, reflecting their ability to adapt to the methods and materials provided. 35 % were moderately engaged, meaning that most students were able to adapt, although perhaps with some challenges. 15 % were only slightly engaged, indicating that some students had difficulty adjusting to changes or learning demands. 5 % were disengaged, indicating that a small group of students were not adapting well. Dynamic Distribution Adaptation (DDA) is a new concept that may address the problem of transfer learning.(41,42)
Sixty percent of respondents indicated high engagement in addressing challenges in implementing Universal Design for Learning (UDL), reflecting that the majority felt there were significant barriers to implementing this approach. 25 % were moderately engaged in addressing these challenges, indicating that they faced barriers but not as severe as those with high engagement. 10 % experienced only slight challenges, indicating that they were able to navigate the implementation of UDL easily. 5 % did not face any barriers, indicating that a small portion felt that implementing UDL did not pose significant problems. Several interrelated challenges hinder UDL, the instructional design investigated in the extant literature, overlap among some checkpoints and guidelines, and lack of theoretical guidance regarding the design and implementation process.(43)
These data show that most students are actively involved in social interactions and learning adaptation. However, the majority of students feel some challenges in implementing UDL. Some groups of students still need more support in learning adaptation. The implementation of UDL can significantly improve social interaction skills in Elementary School Teacher Education (PGSD) students. UDL is an educational approach designed to provide equal access to learning for all students, considering their varied needs, interests, and capabilities. In the context of higher education, especially for PGSD students, the implementation of UDL allows them to interact more actively, both with fellow students and lecturers.
UDL creates an inclusive learning environment where each student can participate in the learning process in a way that best suits their learning style. This can increase social interaction, as students are encouraged to collaborate, discuss, and share understanding through various media and adapted methods.(44) In addition, UDL encourages the use of various resources and strategies to facilitate learning, which can strengthen students’ social interactions. By using various ways to access, process, and present information, PGSD students can develop deeper literacy skills in reading, writing, and critical thinking. Although the UDL concept has been widely applied in elementary and secondary schools, its application in higher education, especially in PGSD programs, has rarely been studied in depth.
The implementation of UDL in higher education, especially in the Elementary School Teacher Education Study Program (PGSD), is still not optimal. Several factors that cause this include:
Although UDL emphasizes the importance of using a variety of teaching methods that are adapted to the diversity of student learning styles, its implementation in higher education is still limited. Many teachers still tend to use traditional methods that are less flexible, such as one-way lectures, without considering the differences in visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles that students have. This makes it difficult for students with different learning styles to understand the material optimally.
Students with special needs, such as sensory or cognitive disabilities, often do not have adequate access to inclusive learning resources. For example, learning materials are not always provided in formats that are accessible to all students, such as alternative text for images, audio transcriptions, or videos with subtitles. These limitations prevent students with special needs from fully participating in the learning process and can create gaps in academic achievement. One of the principles of UDL is to foster an inclusive learning environment that enables all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds, to engage and interact effectively. However, social interaction among students is not optimal in many colleges. Differences in social background, culture, or ability often create barriers to student communication and collaboration. In addition, classrooms or learning settings are not always designed to encourage more intense student collaboration and interaction.
Many university teachers do not fully understand the concept of UDL and how to implement it effectively in lecture activities. This limited understanding causes the implementation of UDL in PGSD to be uneven and tends to be sporadic. As a result, not all students benefit from this approach, especially those with special learning needs. Thus, to optimize the implementation of UDL in higher education, especially in PGSD, there needs to be an effort to expand teachers’ understanding of more inclusive teaching methods, provide more accessible learning resources, and create an environment that supports social interaction between students. This will ensure that all students, including those with special needs, can learn effectively and have equal access to education.
UDL encourages active participation and collaboration between students. Students are more likely to engage in discussions, share ideas, and work together by providing a variety of ways of action and expression. This collaborative environment enhances social interaction skills, such as communication, empathy, and teamwork. Based on the research results, there are several significant findings related to student engagement in various aspects of learning and the challenges faced in implementing UDL. In general, most students showed high engagement in social interactions during lectures, learning adaptation, and literacy skill development.(21)
However, challenges in implementing UDL are still significant issues, especially related to accessibility, variety of teaching methods, and inclusive learning environments. The researcher will then take the following steps:
The researcher will design and implement more varied and adaptive teaching methods to address the needs of students with diverse learning styles. This will involve the use of educational technology and the integration of learning media that support inclusivity. The researcher will work with institutions to provide more learning resources that are accessible to all students, including students with special needs. This includes providing materials in various formats (text, audio, video, etc.) that are in accordance with UDL principles. The researcher will focus on increasing more effective social interactions in the lecture environment, especially by encouraging collaboration and cooperation between students from various backgrounds. This will involve designing classrooms that support active communication and participation. Ongoing Evaluation of UDL Implementation: Researchers will also continue to evaluate the effectiveness of UDL implementation through further research. This step aims to identify new challenges that may arise and adopt a more inclusive and sustainable approach to education.
CONCLUSIONS
This study has explored the implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and its impact on enhancing social interaction among learners in university. The findings indicate that UDL strategies significantly contribute to increased student engagement in collaborative activities, social interactions, and the efficient utilization of technology. The data reveal that a substantial majority of learners actively participate in social interactions during lectures and adapt well to diverse learning methods, highlighting the positive outcomes of UDL in fostering an inclusive educational environment. However, the research also identifies notable challenges in the implementation of UDL, including barriers related to accessibility, resource limitations, and varying levels of understanding among educators. These challenges underscore the necessity for ongoing professional development and support for faculty to ensure that UDL principles are effectively integrated into teaching practices.In conclusion, while the study demonstrates the potential of UDL to enhance social interaction and engagement among students, it also emphasizes the need for targeted interventions to address the barriers faced by some learners. Future research should focus on developing comprehensive strategies to optimize UDL implementation, ensuring that all students, regardless of their backgrounds or capabilities, can fully contribute to and benefit from the educational process. By fostering an inclusive learning environment, we can promote not only academic success but also the development of essential social skills that are vital for students’ future endeavors.
REFERENCES
1. Galkienė A, Monkevičienė O. Improving Inclusive Education through Universal Design for Learning. 2021. 334 p. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80658-3
2. Yuwono I, Kusumastuti DE, Suherman Y, Dhafiya F, Rahmatika P. Development of Learning Application for College Students with Special Needs using Universal Design for Learning. Pegem J Educ Instr. 2023;13(3):314–22. https://doi.org/10.47750/pegegog.13.03.32
3. Sewell A, Kennett A, Pugh V. Universal Design for Learning as a theory of inclusive practice for use by educational psychologists. Educ Psychol Pract [Internet]. 2022;38(4):364–78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2022.2111677
4. Frolli A, Cerciello F, Esposito C, Ricci MC, Laccone RP, Bisogni F. Universal Design for Learning for Children with ADHD. Children. 2023;10(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081350
5. Evmenova A. Preparing Teachers to Use Universal Design for Learning to Support Diverse Learners. J Online Learn Res. 2018;4(2):147–71. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1184985.pdf
6. Zitha I, Mokganya G, Sinthumule O. Innovative Strategies for Fostering Student Engagement and Collaborative Learning among Extended Curriculum Programme Students. Educ Sci. 2023;13(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121196
7. Zhou Q, Zhang H, Li F. The Impact of Online Interactive Teaching on University Students’ Deep Learning—The Perspective of Self-Determination. Educ Sci. 2024;14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060664
8. Fleming EC. UDL for Inclusive Teaching: Offering Choice to Increase Belonging Through Technology. J Teach Learn with Technol. 2023;12(1):1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.14434/jotlt.v12i1.36327
9. Deroncele-Acosta A, Ellis A. Overcoming Challenges and Promoting Positive Education in Inclusive Schools: A Multi-Country Study. Educ Sci. 2024;14(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14111169
10. Ortiz K, Rices MF, Mckeown T, Tonks D. Special Issue : Inclusion in Online Learning Environments. J Online Learn Res [Internet]. 2020;6(3):171–6. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346955638_Special_Issue_Inclusion_in_Online_Learning_Environments
11. Ghoneim R, Aljedaani W, Bryce R, Javed Y, Khan ZI. Why Are Other Teachers More Inclusive in Online Learning Than Us? Exploring Challenges Faced by Teachers of Blind and Visually Impaired Students: A Literature Review. Computers. 2024;13(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13100247
12. Xu G, Jiang P, Xiong B. The Impact of Online Education on Gifted Mathematics Students from Different Family Backgrounds. Sustain. 2024;16(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198444
13. Tran T, Ho MT, Pham TH, Nguyen MH, Nguyen KLP, Vuong TT, et al. How digital natives learn and thrive in the digital age: Evidence from an emerging economy. Sustain. 2020;12(9):1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093819
14. Al-Hail M, Zguir MF, Koç M. Exploring Digital Learning Opportunities and Challenges in Higher Education Institutes: Stakeholder Analysis on the Use of Social Media for Effective Sustainability of Learning–Teaching–Assessment in a University Setting in Qatar. Sustain. 2024;16(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156413
15. Finnegan LA. The impact of technology on the teaching and learning process. In: Handbook of Research on Human Development in the Digital Age. 2017. p. 235–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2838-8.ch011
16. Rusconi L, Squillaci M. Effects of a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Training Course on the Development Teachers’ Competences: A Systematic Review. Educ Sci. 2023;13(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050466
17. Triana H, Supena A. The Impact of Universal Design for Learning on Student Learning Effectiveness in Elementary Schools (Process and Outcomes). Prism Sains J Pengkaj Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Mat dan IPA IKIP Mataram. 2023;11(2):596. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v11i2.7895
18. Beck Wells M. Student perspectives on the use of universal design for learning in virtual formats in higher education. Smart Learn Environ [Internet]. 2022;9(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00218-6
19. Diaz-Vega M, Moreno-Rodriguez R, Lopez-Bastias JL. Educational inclusion through the universal design for learning: Alternatives to teacher training. Educ Sci. 2020;10(11):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110303
20. Ewe LP, Galvin T. Universal Design for Learning across Formal School Structures in Europe—A Systematic Review. Educ Sci. 2023;13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090867
21. Espada-Chavarria R, González-Montesino RH, López-Bastías JL, Díaz-Vega M. Universal Design for Learning and Instruction: Effective Strategies for Inclusive Higher Education. Educ Sci. 2023;13(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060620
22. Priyadharsini V, Sahaya Mary R. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Inclusive Education: Accelerating Learning for All. Shanlax Int J Arts, Sci Humanit. 2024;11(4):145–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.34293/sijash.v11i4.7489
23. Kasemsarn K, Sawadsri A. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in Heritage Education: A Multimedia Approach to ‘Phra Aphai Mani.’ Heritage. 2024;7(10):5907–31.
24. Navneet S, Sajad AM. Social Media: Usage And The Impact On Education. J Namibian Stud. 2023;33(3):4670–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/heritage7100277
25. Priya A. Case Study Methodology of Qualitative Research: Key Attributes and Navigating the Conundrums in Its Application. Sociol Bull. 2021;70(1):94–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318
26. Taherdoost H. Data Collection Methods and Tools for Research; A Step-by-Step Guide to Choose Data Collection Technique for Academic and Business Research Projects. Int J Acad Res Manag [Internet]. 2021;2021(1):10–38. Available from: https://hal.science/hal-03741847
27. Muhtadi A, Ismaniati C, Haryanto H, Miyarso E, Jayanti DD. Gender Perspective: Independent Learning of Generation Z in Online Learning. J Educ Technol. 2022;6(2):191–8. https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v6i2.42969
28. Dabija DC, Bejan BM, Pușcaș C. A Qualitative Approach to the Sustainable Orientation of Generation Z in Retail: The Case of Romania. J Risk Financ Manag. 2020;13(7). http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13070152
29. Mortazavi M, Davarpanah A. Implementation of a thematic analysis method to develop a qualitative model on the authentic foreign language learning perspective: A case study in the university of Northern Cyprus. Educ Sci. 2021;11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090544
30. Chu H, Ke Q. Research methods: What’s in the name? Libr Inf Sci Res. 2017;39(4):284–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.11.001
31. Naeem M, Ozuem W, Howell K, Ranfagni S. A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. Int J Qual Methods. 2023;22(October):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
32. Ghazlane I, Touri B, Bergadi M, Marnoufi K. the Design of the Research Method in Graduate Research Work. Psychol Appl Trends. 2020;(April):262–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.36315/2020inpact060.pdf
33. Jowsey T, Deng C, Weller J. General-purpose thematic analysis: a useful qualitative method for anaesthesia research. BJA Educ [Internet]. 2021;21(12):472–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjae.2021.07.006
34. Zamiri M, Esmaeili A. Methods and Technologies for Supporting Knowledge Sharing within Learning Communities: A Systematic Literature Review. Adm Sci. 2024;14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14010017
35. Xerri MJ, Radford K, Shacklock K. Student engagement in academic activities: a social support perspective. High Educ. 2018;75(4):589–605. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10734-017-0162-9
36. Uru FO, Gozukara E, Tezcan L. The Moderating Roles of Remote, Hybrid, and Onsite Working on the Relationship between Work Engagement and Organizational Identification during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustain. 2022;14(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416828
37. Sunwoo K, Choi J, Blazquez V. Followership in Business Transformation : Hyundai Motor Group Case. Adm Sci. 2024;14(309):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14120309
38. Kiryakova G, Kozhuharova D. The Digital Competences Necessary for the Successful Pedagogical Practice of Teachers in the Digital Age. Educ Sci. 2024;14(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050507
39. Arruda EP, Kerres M. Education Practices Mediated by Digital Technologies: Mobilization and Teachers’ Strategies in Primary and Secondary Schools in Germany. Educ Sci. 2024;14(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080838
40. Horovitz T, Mayer RE. Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2021;119(September 2020):106724. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106724
41. Zheng X, Gu Z, Liu C, Jiang J, He Z, Gao M. Deep Transfer Network with Multi-Space Dynamic Distribution Adaptation for Bearing Fault Diagnosis. Entropy. 2022;24(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/e24081122
42. Wang J, Fu Y, Feng H, Wang J. Transfer Learning for Indoor Localization Algorithm Based on Deep Domain Adaptation. Sensors. 2023;23(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/s23239334
43. Tancredi H, Graham LJ, Killingly C, Sweller N. Investigating the impact of Accessible Pedagogies on the experiences and engagement of students with language and/or attentional difficulties. Learn Environ Res [Internet]. 2024;(0123456789). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09514-z
44. Sharma A, Thakur K, Kapoor DS, Singh KJ. Designing inclusive learning environments: Universal design for learning in practice. In: The Impact and Importance of Instructional Design in the Educational Landscape. 2023. p. 24–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8208-7.ch002
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researcher would like to express his deepest gratitude to all parties who have provided support in completing this research. In particular, thanks to the research and community service institute of Semarang State University. Especially the faculty of education and psychology, for providing valuable facilities, time, and guidance during the research process.
FINANCING
The authors did not receive financing for the development of this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Data curation: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Formal analysis: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Research: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Methodology: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Project management: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Resources: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Software: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Supervision: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Validation: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Display: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Drafting - original draft: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.
Writing - proofreading and editing: Sri Sukasih, Desi Wulandari, Dewi Nilam Tyas, Noening Andrijati.